Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I was completely unaware there was such a dearth of children in the U.S. Wow.

I absolutely refuse to believe that the abolishment of marriage would bring about the destruction of mankind. That sounds just like that thing right-wingers always say about us cocksuckers: If people are allowed to hiney-poke and weenie touch unrestrained, the human race will cease to exist!

Malarkey.

Why? Because people like to fuck...and enough people would still do so to keep the population afloat with our without a piece of paper from city hall. And the same goes for unrestrained buttsex. We queens still represent a fraction of the population at large, and there are more than enough guys wantin' to tap some hot gal to keep us in babies for ages to come.

Good idea, lets abolish marriage. Traditional male/female marriage is the basis of our society. You dont think abolishing marriage would damage our society? Without marriage,you would not have families. You are kidding,right?

apparently you haven't been married, many may choose death over no chance of divorce.What I meant earlier by lack of children is American families of US origin are having less children, but immigrants legal and illegal are making up much of the growth. You just dont see many families having more than two or three children since mid 80s, its just too fucking expensive. Unless you have raised children you have no idea what it costs and the sacrifices you make everyday. I am not saying everyone needs to do it or its for everyone, but just that its a 24/7 job that never,ever ends. If you see someone with 5 kids today they are the freaks of the neighborhood and oddity.

Let the record show I'm not for getting rid of marriage. I think heterosexual marriage makes many people very happy and helps provide a stable environment for children. Just because it doesn't always last until death doesn't mean marriage doesn't work. I think gays and lesbians have different kinds of relationships with different needs.

Without marriage,you wouldn't have families. Without families you have no society. Without families you have no history. I dont see how you can doubt that. I came to acceptance of gay marriage as a matter simple fairness and being against it is simply discrimination and that is illegal. But the last few posts are exactly what the far right radicals have been saying,there are many who support gay marriage as some kind of trojan horse to destroy the institution of traditional marriage and the families those marriages produce. I never believed this to be true,but it seems that is what some are saying

Without marriage,you wouldn't have families. Without families you have no society. Without families you have no history. I dont see how you can doubt that. I came to acceptance of gay marriage as a matter simple fairness and being against it is simply discrimination and that is illegal. But the last few posts are exactly what the far right radicals have been saying,there are many who support gay marriage as some kind of trojan horse to destroy the institution of traditional marriage and the families those marriages produce. I never believed this to be true,but it seems that is what some are saying

So... a single, unwed mother with two kids.

Is that a family?

Or is a divorced father raising a child a family?

Or a man and a woman who choose to live together but are not married and who have children... are they a family?

I still fail to see where marriage is a necessary ingredient in having a family.

Look a little more closely at marriage, and a few things come to light. The first is that no matter what the right wing says, marriage in the US is a government thing, not religious. If you get married without filing the proper paperwork, fees, etc, you "marriage" will not be recognized by any local, state. or federal government organization. Period. The second thing that the Christian Right never stops to think about, or more appropriately, doesn't want you to think about, is this: Marriage has an abysmal failure rate. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and out of the ones that stay together, how many are actually a good and productive union, how many are happy marriages? Does 50% sound reasonable? If half of the marriages that stay together are unhappy, then that would give the institution of marriage a stunning failure rate of 75% What, exactly are these assholes "protecting"? No one has ever come up with a coherent argument that can demonstrate exactly HOW gay marriage jeopardizes heterosexual marriage. I Have yet to see divorce papers show that the cause of divorce was because two lesbians down the street got married. The only thing that can threaten a marriage is the behavior of the two people in it. It really is as simple as that.

HA! I also love to hear the typical response: Yes, marriage is in a bad way. Therefore, there's no good in mucking it up even further by letting the gays in on it.

Which brings me to another point: I am completely over how legislation with regard to gays and lesbians is slanted in this country. I always thought that the ideal was along the lines of "innocent unless proven guilty" (note unless, not until...a pet peeve of mine since "until" infers that guilt will eventually be found). With us queer folk, there is always a sense of presumed "guilt". The onus is always on us to prove that we aren't a menace or that we do deserve validation- rather than the other way around. It burns my burger to no end. We have to carry the burden to prove why we SHOULD be afforded legal protections rather than it having to be shown why we shouldn't.

Years of being beaten round the head by sanctimonous people berating gay people that their relationships to do not constitute the same as a heterosexual man and wife, is enough to turn any queer against the idea.

You can't have kids, you're certainly not equal and you can't get married. God says so. The Religious Right ignoring the basic concept of Equality under the Law, peddling fear and hatred, gross stereotypes that we as Gay Men and Women know are based on nothing but a loathing of people who 'choose' not live like them.

Civil Partnerships are about equality and legal recognition. This is not marriage. Many of those who have already got hitched would not want a religious ceremony, even if hypocritical religious faiths finally recognised us.

All I know is, its a lot easier raising children with a partner who is working as hard at it as you. My wife and I made a commitment early on that we would trade early income so one of us could always be at home with our children. We were both products of big,wonderful, and very happy families. We wanted nothing to stand in the way of our children having the absolute best chance of attaining happiness and succeeding in today society. In todays society it is very,very difficult to raise a child for one individual,I am not saying it can't be done,but it is very tough. I have great respect for single moms and dads who successfully raise children, but I know for a fact I wouldn't wanna do it.

Let the record show I'm not for getting rid of marriage. I think heterosexual marriage makes many people very happy and helps provide a stable environment for children. Just because it doesn't always last until death doesn't mean marriage doesn't work. I think gays and lesbians have different kinds of relationships with different needs.

And I also say that just because it doesn't match your needs, doesn't mean it can't well serve others. I also would like to suggest that a recognized union might make some of our own very happy and might also provide a stable environment for children. For all the talk of the drying up of the offspring well, I still think there are a good number of children in need of loving himes and a fair amount of gay and lesbian people in the waiting to be good parents. And I refuse to accept that these kids are better served sitting in a state home or tossed around in a foster system than they might be under the care of two moms or dads.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

And on that point, I will agree with Jack...about 80%. I don't think the very existence of a human world would would be jeapordized, but I take his point about the social upheaval fears generated by cries to completely abolish the current family structure. And that's why I think we are better served at leveling the field within the framework of what is here than we are calling for the complete destruction of the curent structure of society. That plea has a rather anarchistic ring to it.

Oh, my God....I've just publicly sided with Jack. Will I lose my A List standing or have my Queer Card revoked? Hold on...I think I just heard a clap of thunder in the distance.

Gay marriage does not threaten traditional marriage, but when proponents of gay marriage question the importance of traditional marriage which produces children(and the family), I think many on the right fear there is something more sinister than two people who love each other wanting to be married. I have read several posts in this thread questioning the need for traditional marriages and families. I really can't imagine a world without traditional families or if there would even be one, a human one. I guess I never knew this kind of thinking was prevalent or in great favor. I guess I just don't get it.

With a greater than 50% divorce rate... I think we're in the brave new world already.

And the nuclear family as we think of it is a byproduct of the industrial era... "traditional" families... such as exist in agricultural societies and were the primary families in all of the world until 1850 or so were the sort of "extended family" model. Several generations living together under one roof... that ended when the Industrial Revolution came.

As we enter the post-industrial era, it's only natural that family structure change as well.

I don't recall suggesting that the nuclear (which is what Jakey and Tim mean by traditional) family should be abolished. I simply believe that its hegemony needs to be broken. So people are free to form their relationships as they see fit and so one section of the community is not privileged to the detriment of everyone else.